Tuesday, October 02, 2012

While President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney bone up in Nevada and Colorado for Wednesday’s opening debate, back in the nation’s capital attention is split between the hard-fought presidential race and baseball playoffs.

The Nationals won the first division baseball championship for a Washington team since 1933 by clinching the National League East race Monday night.

Washington, D.C., has the only ballpark where so many Cabinet members, politicians and other luminaries routinely gather and where fans now are openly rooting for a particular president — one who served more than a century ago, Theodore Roosevelt.

Reader Comments and Retorts

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

And I fail to see how Zop's father pays 50%. The highest NY state and local tax rates combine for just under 11%. The highest US rate is 35%. they combine for 46%, but since one can deduct state and local taxes from the fed, the 35% is reduced to 31%. So his rate should be no more than 42%.

I work at a big firm in Manhattan; I probably make and pay what you do.

I'm disagreeing with you because you don't understand how letting the Bush tax cuts on income above $250K affects you, not because I'm incapable of understanding what it's like to make a lot of money in an expensive city.

The tax hike you're mad as hell about isn't making you pay 50% of your marginal income--and it doesn't even affect people between $200K and $250K, much less "crush" them. Instead, it would increase the federal income tax burden on your income above $250K from 33% to 36%.

I thought Biden did a lot better than I'd expected. Ryan did about as I expected. My scorecard has Ryan the winner by a little. Ryan was calm and in control and made consistent points. Biden did ok on substance, but his constant interruptions and laughs and mocking smiles didn't serve him well, I don't think. And his act of being shocked, just shocked, at everything Ryan said wore thin quickly.

But yes, not a mismatch on either side - even if you think Biden won, it was close IMO - so not likely to move the needle much.

I thought Biden's point about Ryan asking for stimulus money hurt Ryan. And I thought he hurt Ryan with the hammering he did re Romney's 47%. (Ryan had a good comeback, but Biden dealt with that effectively.) Ryan got his own shots in at times also. And Ryan's cooler manner portrayed the image that he wasn't flustered and knew what he was talking about.

And Ryan's cooler manner portrayed the image that he wasn't flustered and knew what he was talking about.

I agree that Ryan looked like he knew what he was talking about,( except when it came to "What would do right now in Syria?", and all he could come up with was "We wouldn't do what Obama has done so far"). The problem is, I don't think he believed what he was talking about.

It's labeled as a CNN/ORC poll, which is the same as CNN's election polling.

According to This Poll
A CNN/ORC International post-debate poll shows that 48% of likely voters think Paul Ryan won the vice-presidential debate, while 44% think Joe Biden won. SPECIAL NOTE OF CAUTION #1: This poll does not and cannot reflect the views of all Americans. It only represents the views of people who watched the debate. SPECIAL NOTE OF CAUTION #2: The sample of debate-watchers in this poll were 31% Democratic and 33% Republican. That indicates that the sample of debate watchers is about eight points more Republican than an average CNN poll of all Americans, so the respondents were more Republican than the general public.

SPECIAL NOTE OF CAUTION #2: The sample of debate-watchers in this poll were 31% Democratic and 33% Republican. That indicates that the sample of debate watchers is about eight points more Republican than an average CNN poll of all Americans, so the respondents were more Republican than the general public.

Joek's not looking for an honest argument. He's looking for one he can use.

I hate that immediately after the debate, all anyone cares about is asking "who won!" Nobody seems to care what the candidates' positions are, only how they presented them. The candidates know this. They understand that 95% of likely voters have already made up their minds, and the other 5% aren't going to go back and examine the words actually spoken tonight.

I know I'm a broken record on this, but I actually care about good debating. I hate that people refer to these dual press conferences as debates.

The median household income in Manhattan is $64,217. 'Zop's claim that he's getting crushed at 200K is ridiculous and demonstrates an inability to interact with reality.

I agree with that, although it is frustrating when you work 50% more hours than certain people, pay 5-10 times as much in taxes, and are villified by them for not wanting your taxes to go up.

Also, something like 60-70% of the housing stock in NYC is rent controlled or rent stabilized. I pay about 4x in rent what my neighbor across the hall does for the same apartment. She can afford to live in Manhattan on $65k a year. I would have a tougher time and certainly could not stay in my current apartment (although there are places it can be done).

what's the Cliff Notes on those foreign embassy attacks at this point, re the extent to which that dopey film caused the fervor?

#independentvoter
#iamworkingtoohardtokeepupwiththisstuff

Here's my honest question: why the #### does it matter? Do you really think that it matters whether it was a planned attack that was missed or a spontaneous protest that was exploited? How the #### that does make a difference in your evaluation of the two candidates positions on foreign policy?

Here's my honest question: why the #### does it matter? Do you really think that it matters whether it was a planned attack that was missed or a spontaneous protest that was exploited? How the #### that does make a difference in your evaluation of the two candidates positions on foreign policy?

Maybe because he might not want to vote for an administration that lied to the American people for a month when the truth was obvious within 24 hours? Or because that administration is now claiming that the death of four Americans is just a "bump in the road" that's only an issue because Romney and Ryan are talking about it?

I agree with that, although it is frustrating when you work 50% more hours than certain people, pay 5-10 times as much in taxes, and are villified by them for not wanting your taxes to go up.

Your taxes go up because you make more money than those people. If you make 200K and work a sixty hour week, you still make more per hour than someone who makes 65K. You make more per hour than someone making 130K. Also, why are you working 50% more hours? Is it to make more money?

Also, something like 60-70% of the housing stock in NYC is rent controlled or rent stabilized. I pay about 4x in rent what my neighbor across the hall does for the same apartment. She can afford to live in Manhattan on $65k a year. I would have a tougher time and certainly could not stay in my current apartment (although there are places it can be done).

If you make 200k, you have more money after taxes and necessities than your neighbor across the hall who pays a quarter of what you pay in rent.

edit:

Maybe because he might not want to vote for an administration that lied to the American people for a month when the truth was obvious within 24 hours?

Looks like you got Paul Ryan's memo on never addressing the issue at hand directly.

Ha ha. I started talking about sample composition and party ID splits at least two months ago and was mocked on a daily basis. It's funny to see how quickly people switched positions on this as soon as Romney moved ahead. I hope Obamacare covers whiplash.

Ha ha. I started talking about sample composition and party ID splits at least two months ago and was mocked on a daily basis. It's funny to see how quickly people switched positions on this now that Romney is ahead. I hope Obamacare covers whiplash.

So you were mocked for deriding biased polls two months ago (when they favored Obama), but when presented with a poll that favors your point of view, you spew it across posts 1802 and 1805? Hypocrite much?

Maybe because he might not want to vote for an administration that lied to the American people for a month when the truth was obvious within 24 hours?

Vote Romney! For honesty's sake. Cannot make this up.

Now, hold on here.

Because Romney changes his position as often as he does (2 or 3 times in a day, if it's a social issue), then it essentially becomes a version of the observers effect in physics.
Even just examining what Romney is saying may actually change what he says right at that moment. If it's the press or public speech or a debate that is observing him, then his position becomes moderate. If it's a Republican crowd or private meeting that measures his response, his position becomes hardcore conservative.

"what's the Cliff Notes on those foreign embassy attacks at this point, re the extent to which that dopey film caused the fervor?"

"Here's my honest question: why the #### does it matter? Do you really think that it matters whether it was a planned attack that was missed or a spontaneous protest that was exploited? How the #### that does make a difference in your evaluation of the two candidates positions on foreign policy?"

just whether the administration knew their stance was inaccurate at the time (again, still learning more about this) - and if not, when did they find out differently, and how quickly did they correct the record.

I think that's a reasonable course of inquiry for an independent: Ok, something bad happens overseas, it always does. How was it handled, in terms of a conversation with the American people?

I post infrequently on these political threads because I sense foam in the mouths of too many on both sides, but can you allow me to at least ask the question? I'm not drawing any conclusions yet (outrageous, I realize).

Maybe you can refer me to what you see as a thoughtful, nuanced analysis on the matter. I'd appreciate that. I don't have a red or a blue shirt on.

So you were mocked for deriding biased polls two months ago (when they favored Obama), but when presented with a poll that favors your point of view, you spew it across posts 1802 and 1805? Hypocrite much?

Comical. I hadn't even seen the splits. Zonk claimed the polls were showing Biden to have won, and I posted the ones I saw that showed otherwise.

Just finished a quick look around the web, and the one thing everyone agrees on is that Martha Raddatz cleaned Jim Lehrer's clock. That certainly came through over the radio.

Raddatz allowed Biden to interrupt somewhere between 82 and 96 times. If that's world-class moderating, they should just skip the moderators and let the two candidates go at each other for 90 minutes.

Raddatz allowed Biden to interrupt somewhere between 82 and 96 times. If that's world-class moderating, they should just skip the moderators and let the two candidates go at each other for 90 minutes.

And yet both candidates somehow were able to get their respective points across forcefully, though perhaps for you that got lost in your preoccupation with point scoring. Do you really think that the way Lehrer handled the first debate was better?

just whether the administration knew their stance was inaccurate at the time (again, still learning more about this) - and if not, when did they find out differently, and how quickly did they correct the record.

Does it matter? It might have been beneficial for purposes of diplomacy to pretend that it was not a planned terrorist attack. Who cares?

I think that's a reasonable course of inquiry for an independent: Ok, something bad happens overseas, it always does. How was it handled, in terms of a conversation with the American people?

No. That's a stupid course of inquiry. A reasonable course of inquiry is an investigation of policy, not a small attack on an embassy.

Even just examining what Romney is saying may actually change what he says right at that moment. If it's the press or public speech or a debate that is observing him, then his position becomes moderate. If it's a Republican crowd or private meeting that measures his response, his position becomes hardcore conservative.

Of course if anyone dares to point this out, why that's MEDIA BIAS! The Republicans' concept of a "balanced" media is for them to assume the role of a stenographer and never report any contradictions.

Ha ha. Where were you for the last two months? You're obsessing over a snap poll of a debate but I don't recall you caring when national pollsters were using Dem+11 samples.

Anyway, the disclaimer doesn't give enough info. to determine how much the split might have affected the results. If the sample had 33 percent GOP but it was "8 points more than usual," then what are the usual splits? There's no way they could be using a 25 percent GOP sample along with 44 percent independents.

Does it matter? It might have been beneficial for purposes of diplomacy to pretend that it was not a planned terrorist attack. Who cares?

This is bizarre. You don't care if the president of the United States and his surrogates actively lied to the American people about a terrorist attack and the death of Americans? You don't care that the president blamed a stupid YouTube video for the deaths of Americans — and threw the First Amendment into the shredder in the process — when he knew all along that no protest even occurred in Benghazi? How did any of that serve "diplomacy" or advance the interests of the United States?

Last week, you were claiming we should "celebrate the BLS" — a bunch of bureaucrats — and now you're excusing blatant lies told by the president and his minions. Your cultish subservience to Obama & Co. is downright weird.

"A CNN/ORC International post-debate poll shows that 48% of likely voters think Paul Ryan won the vice-presidential debate, while 44% think Joe Biden won. SPECIAL NOTE OF CAUTION #1: This poll does not and cannot reflect the views of all Americans. It only represents the views of people who watched the debate."

That has to be the dumbest proclaimer of all-time. Perhaps they should have elicited views on who won the debate from people who didn't watch teh debate. That would make more sense.

Just for Martin Hemner, every baseball game can have a dumb proclaimers too.

SPECIAL NOTE OF CAUTION #1: THIS SCORE DOES NOT REFLECT THE RUNS SCORED OF ALL TEAMS. IT ONLY REFLECTS THE SCORE OF THE TWO TEAMS THAT WERE PLAYING THE GAME
SPECIAL NOTE OF CAUTION #2: THE ORIOLES WON 2-1 BUT THIS SCORE DOES NOT REFLECT THE SCORE OF EVERY GAME

Just for the lulz, we need to implement Hemner Disclaimers along with Jolly St. Nick's Customer Service For the Hapless (Why doesn't the TV work when the power is off? Please tell me the chemicals reasons why I should not drink Mr. Clean. I'm supposed to put the penis where? REALLY?)

SPECIAL NOTE OF CAUTION #1: THIS SCORE DOES NOT REFLECT THE RUNS SCORED OF ALL TEAMS. IT ONLY REFLECTS THE SCORE OF THE TWO TEAMS THAT WERE PLAYING THE GAME
SPECIAL NOTE OF CAUTION #2: THE ORIOLES WON 2-1 BUT THIS SCORE DOES NOT REFLECT THE SCORE OF EVERY GAME

Dude, I hate to tell you this. Polls aren't used to predict events that already happened. Were you not aware of that? For example, a poll of "Did the Orioles win tonight?" would hopefully yield 100% "yes" votes. Why would you spend the effort on that?
If only Romney had let you watch Sesame Street...

If you would like to do a poll, why not ask if the Orioles will win tomorrow? I would appreciate a Hemner Disclaimer if you only poll Oriole fans. I know you will only give me one if you are a Yankee fan though.

And yet I will take my chances in the BBTF court of public opinion.
I asked for any thoughtful link of your choosing to help me vet this further, and was informed of my "stupid course of inquiry."

I have much more respect for left-leaning BBTFers than many/most?#notsure of the right-wing/libertarians here. Asking questions about a recent foreign policy event that, for rather more profound reasons than you can apparently imagine, have left me unable to keep up with the changing dynamics strikes you as a call to hostility.

Ha ha. Where were you for the last two months? You're obsessing over a snap poll of a debate but I don't recall you caring when national pollsters were using Dem+11 samples.

I was treating sick children and fighting with insurance companies. Do you recall me not caring about pollsters back then? I'm not sure I even know who you are, and yet you seem to know a lot about how I feel.

Anyway, the disclaimer doesn't give enough info. to determine how much the split might have affected the results. If the sample had 33 percent GOP but it was "8 points more than usual," then what are the usual splits? There's no way they could be using a 25 percent GOP sample along with 44 percent independents.

I can accept that, but then I would caution you against using the poll to demonstrate anything if you can't vouch for its accuracy.

I dunno who "won" tonight's debate exactly, if anyone. I don't pretend to be neutral myself and, really, I didn't get any idea that one side gave way better or worse than they got. But I do know that Biden at least sounded like he was fighting for something, and that inherently has value. If you go up there and then don't fight for what you believe in, people may get the idea that what you believe in isn't worth fighting for.

EDIT: Said "neutral" instead of "objective." I try my hand at amateur objective analysis all the time here, most of it thankfully about baseball.

I was treating sick children and fighting with insurance companies. Do you recall me not caring about pollsters back then? I'm not sure I even know who you are, and yet to seem to know a lot about how I feel.

No, just pointing out that your big discovery about the CNN/ORC poll's sample wasn't exactly a new topic here. Until Romney took the lead last week and Dems got amnesia, people who talked about a poll's party ID split were known here (and elsewhere among lefties) as "poll truthers."

I can accept that, but then I would caution you against using the poll to demonstrate anything if you can't vouch for its accuracy.

I don't recall "using" the poll at all. I simply copied the text from Twitter to here for purposes of discussion.

Just to be clear, when I said you could balance the budget by increasing taxes as a percentage of GDP by 9.1%, that would not mean a 9% increase in taxes paid. The current percentage is ~27% GDP, so it would be a ~33% increase on all taxes. To cover medicare in the future (if nothing changes), the number would be more like a 50-60% increase in taxes.

Of course, you'd have to increase it by more than 9% GDP to actually cover the gap, since such a large increase in taxes would cause a recession.

Biden did ok on substance, but his constant interruptions and laughs and mocking smiles didn't serve him well, I don't think. And his act of being shocked, just shocked, at everything Ryan said wore thin quickly.

Biden's performance is probably going to take a bit of a hit on Saturday Night Live and the late show monologues. Similar to Al "Lockbox" Gore. Might not move the needle much, but it doesn't help when they are laughing at you.

Biden's performance is probably going to take a bit of a hit on Saturday Night Live and the late show monologues. Similar to Al "Lockbox" Gore. Might not move the needle much, but it doesn't help when they are laughing at you

Generally speaking, the team that comes out of a debate complaining that the other side was mean and rude lost the debate.

I have much more respect for left-leaning BBTFers than many/most?#notsure of the right-wing/libertarians here. Asking questions about a recent foreign policy event that, for rather more profound reasons than you can apparently imagine, have left me unable to keep up with the changing dynamics strikes you as a call to hostility.

I'm not nearly as well read on this topic as I should be. But the problems seem to be:

1) our consulate, in a chaotic semi-war zone was woefully unsecure
2) initially, reports were that the ambassador himself had asked for a "low-profile". But, it turns out that he and his staff had been pleading for help for awhile.
3) initially, a film was blamed and the attack was considered to be a spontaneous event.
4) Quickly, it becamse clear that it was a planned, well-executed attack.
5) The administration continued to speculate as to the nature of the attack long after what had happened was clear to everyone else.

Was it diplomacy or intelligence security that kept them saying it was the film well after it was clearly a planned attack? Perhaps. But politics is perception and, to me, the perception here is that the Obama team had in place an inept and naive plan for Libya, much in keeping with what their critics on the right have been saying about how they do business. I think had Romney not opened his trap and spouted off so quickly and harshly, this might well have steam-rolled against Obama. I still think there is a 10-20% chance something really ugly for Obama comes out of it ahead of the election. Maybe a 5-10% chance they get vindicated.

I asked for any thoughtful link of your choosing to help me vet this further

I would offer a link, but I don't have any. It is an odd story. The attack happened and people died. Since before it was even really done the whole thing has been a political football with the GOP trying desperately to score points, the Dems to defend (and also score points), and the administration (State Dept mostly) trying to do their jobs under pressure from back home and in a volatile region of the world (to say the least).

* The issues seem to line up as stuff before the attack (embassy security and so on).
* How was the attack handled.
* Post attack diplomacy.
* Post attack domestic (read: political) messaging.

Sadly a huge percentage of the heat and light comes from the last point which is far and away the least important. Before Joe K erupts in another "lies to the American people" rant let me just point out that historically (for good reason) where diplomacy is the name of the game you can't (and shouldn't) focus your efforts on domestic messaging and dissembling, half truth, and outright lies allowing various factions to save face is pretty much the name of the game.

Regarding foreign policy and strategy we need domestic honesty and transparency. Regarding diplomacy not so much. Anyone who thinks diplomacy is all about honesty to all parties needs to play Diplomacy against me (for money).

So looping back, are you interested in all four parts or just the political, which is point #4? Politically there is much sound and fury signifying ... well not much. As for the other aspects I have not seen anything that gets me all excited either way, but I still don't have any good links (sorry).

Trying to balance a federal budget in the midst of a bad (at best shaky) economy is ridiculous. Why are we even discussing this? Raising some taxes in a measured way to keep the deficit in line is one thing, talking about a tax, austerity, or combo plan to balance the budget in the next x years is silly.

So looping back, are you interested in all four parts or just the political, which is point #4? Politically there is much sound and fury signifying ... well not much. As for the other aspects I have not seen anything that gets me all excited either way, but I still don't have any good links (sorry).

I think this is a good summary and says what I was trying to say better than I said it. We really don't know what happened. I think it's possible this is an Obama fuch-up of epic proportions. It's probably a more normal fuch-up.

But when these things happen two months before a hot election, point 4 will win out. If Pearl Harbor had occured September 7, 1940, it would have turned into a political football. I do think we are at our most vulnerable in the weeks before an election - if I were to hit us, that is when I'd do it.

Just for the lulz, we need to implement Hemner Disclaimers along with Jolly St. Nick's Customer Service For the Hapless (Why doesn't the TV work when the power is off? Please tell me the chemicals reasons why I should not drink Mr. Clean. I'm supposed to put the penis where? REALLY?)

This place always gets a little more entertaining when Dan goes off the meds...

Was it diplomacy or intelligence security that kept them saying it was the film well after it was clearly a planned attack? Perhaps. But politics is perception and, to me, the perception here is that the Obama team had in place an inept and naive plan for Libya, much in keeping with what their critics on the right have been saying about how they do business.

The deaths last week of Stevens, Smith, Doherty, and Woods should remind all of us of the extreme risks and daily discomforts that are taken by a great many of the thousands of men and women who staff the more than 260 embassies, consulates, and missions we maintain in 180 separate countries. We should also recognize that our national security is as dependent on men like Christopher Stevens and the work they do in weaving together alliances and bringing stability to strife-torn regions of the world as by our investments in military hardware or our deployment of military personnel. It is a tough, often dirty business—it deserves our respect and appreciation.

It also deserves resources. In each of the last two years, Congress has cut President Obama’s request for U.S. Foreign Service and U.S. Agency for International Development staffing levels despite repeated analysis by the Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress, indicating that our embassies are critically understaffed.

But even more inexcusable are the repeated and deep cuts made to embassy security and construction. Thousands of our diplomatic personnel are serving overseas in facilities that do not come close to meeting the minimal requirements for security established by the so-called Inman commission’s report on overseas diplomatic security to President Ronald Reagan’s secretary of state more than two decades ago.

Nor is it likely to change anytime soon. In the 2011 continuing resolution, Congress, at the insistence of the House of Representatives, slashed the president’s request for embassy security and construction and forced another cut in fiscal year 2012. Altogether Congress has eliminated $296 million from embassy security and construction in the last two years with additional cuts in other State Department security accounts.

Congress, at the insistence of the House of Representatives, slashed the president’s request for embassy security and construction and forced another cut in fiscal year 2012. Altogether Congress has eliminated $296 million from embassy security and construction in the last two years with additional cuts in other State Department security accounts.

But government spending is evil! We must slash spending and lower tax rates. It is the only way to keep America as great as it was in the 1950s when tax rates were near zero, men were men (white hetero males only please), everyone knew Government was evil and everything was great!*

* Sarcasm alert. Tax rates were actually pretty high back in the day and government was thought of a a force for good (in general) by Liberals and Conservatives.

I thought Biden's point about Ryan asking for stimulus money hurt Ryan.

I am a bit surprised this has not gotten more play in the Obama team ads. Particularly the point about Ryan saying the stimulus creates jobs. I thought that was a very effect shot at Ryan. Seems like an easy commercial with Romney (preferably with Ryan standing next to him) speaking about how the stimulus failed and then switching to Ryan's statement.

[1829] Couldn't you give me the cliff notes version? Is it subsidized housing? Qualified by income?

Rent stabilization is privately owned housing at artificially constrained prices from c 1974 with small annual increases purportedly to cover changes in operating expenses. It is a feature of the apartment largely disconnected from the income or identity of the tenant. There are vacancy increases, but deregulation is difficult.

From housingNYC.org:

High-Rent/High-Income Deregulation: A rent stabilized apartment can be deregulated when the legal rent on the apartment surpasses $2,500 a month, the annual household income (defined as Federal Adjusted Gross Income) of the tenants has been more than $200,000 a year for the preceding two years, and the owner applies for the deregulation with DHCR.

Rent control dates to WWII price controls, and is even more distorted, with the stereotypical little old lady occupying a 4 bedroom apt on Central Park West by herself for $600/month.

Good lord, it's after midnight. Couldn't you give me the cliff notes version? Is it subsidized housing? Qualified by income?

The various rent regulation in NYC are an abomination.

It's also probably safe to assume Joe did a similar amount of internet screaming when Bush carefully orchestrated a series of lies to convince Americans Iraq was an immanent threat to the US.

where "safe to assume" = no way in hell.

What I kind of like about Joek is that he really makes no serious pretense of being fair, or honest, or objective. We know that no matter what the news or event or topic how he will spin it. His loose grasp of facts, his breathtaking mathematical illiteracy are no stumbling blocks for him as he has absolutely no sense of shame whatsoever, he will fight on with what he believes to be the good fight.

Rent stabilization is privately owned housing at artificially constrained prices from c 1974 with small annual increases purportedly to cover changes in operating expenses. It is a feature of the apartment largely disconnected from the income or identity of the tenant. There are vacancy increases, but deregulation is difficult.

Wow. So how does one get one? When there's a vacancy, is there a lottery, or is it first come first served?

Was it diplomacy or intelligence security that kept them saying it was the film well after it was clearly a planned attack? Perhaps. But politics is perception and, to me, the perception here is that the Obama team had in place an inept and naive plan for Libya, much in keeping with what their critics on the right have been saying about how they do business. I think had Romney not opened his trap and spouted off so quickly and harshly, this might well have steam-rolled against Obama. I still think there is a 10-20% chance something really ugly for Obama comes out of it ahead of the election. Maybe a 5-10% chance they get vindicated.

In the recent Congressional hearings on the subject, it appears that the Congressmen, in their zeal to find out what went wrong, may have revealed classified information, including that the CIA had a base of operations at an annex to the embassy. I wonder (but will likely never know) how that effected the White House and State Department responses.

Rent control dates to WWII price controls, and is even more distorted, with the stereotypical little old lady occupying a 4 bedroom apt on Central Park West by herself for $600/month.

It could be worse than that, I had an uncle who for years was living in a 2BDRM in Queens for less than $200 a month. He was also a nasty drunk who was pretty much estranged from every blood relative and most of his neighbors, so you could say this was example #996,325 that there was no justice in the world.

He was employed full time up to the end, but nevertheless spent the last few years of his life engaged in an escalating battle with his Landlord (they wanted him out of course, at one point one landlord offered him some $100k lump sum to just get the eff out- that guy eventually gave up and sold the building, the next one renovated every apartment except one- guess which one, my Uncle sued him, the landlord sued him, my Aunt discovered that at the end he hadn't paid his pitiful rent in over a year, and was being kept from eviction because some moronic LT judge had issued restraining order.... When my Uncle got sick he spent the last year in a hospital- during that time the landlord was not allowed to do anything with that apartment... NYC landlords can be real pieces of work themselves, but I actually felt bad for my Uncle's landlords

Biden did ok on substance, but his constant interruptions and laughs and mocking smiles didn't serve him well, I don't think. And his act of being shocked, just shocked, at everything Ryan said wore thin quickly.

How else is one supposed to react when his opponent is lying shamelessly?

Wow. So how does one get one? When there's a vacancy, is there a lottery, or is it first come first served?

You don't anymore.
Seriously, you get one by illegally subletting one
or you have relative who has one, and when they die you claim to have been living with them...

Rent Control?regulation is SLOWLY sunsetting, it was a terribly counterproductive idea, it screwed up the housing market for decades, stifled construction, and essentially means that people in non-controlled/regulated apartments are subsidizing the ones who do.

The problem is that people who benefit from these policies will vote that issue ahead of EVERYTHING else- it's like the 3rd rail of NYC politics.

Rent control dates to WWII price controls, and is even more distorted, with the stereotypical little old lady occupying a 4 bedroom apt on Central Park West by herself for $600/month.

My late aunt was paying $99.56 a month for what amounted to a broom closet on Patchin Place when she died at the age of 93 in 1989. She'd worked her butt off as a milliner before she retired, and by being able to stay in the heart of Greenwich Village she was able to be a vital part of that community right up to the end. When rent control opponents can find a better outcome than that for people like her, I'll listen. Do means testing in order to see that the system can't be gamed by people who don't truly need it, but those people are only one part of the story.

"His work has been far from satisfactory... Several times he has been in trouble, because he will not listen, but will insist on doing work his own way. I believe he has ideas about becoming a scientist; on his present showing this is quite ridiculous... it would be a sheer waste of time, both on his part and of those who have to teach him"
High School report card of John Gurdon, winner of the 2012 Nobel Prize in physiology or medicine.

A while back we briefly discussed education and the idea of tracking students in high school in order to "more efficiently" educate students came up (as it usually does). It is just an anecdote, but it illustrates why tracking can be a bad idea.

You don't anymore.
Seriously, you get one by illegally subletting one
or you have relative who has one, and when they die you claim to have been living with them...

This is true for rent control apartments (essentially no allowable increases in rent) but not for rent stabilized apartments (limited annual increases + larger vacancy increases + luxury decontrol). The latter comes on the market as existing tenants relocate (which in my building happens in about 1/2 of the apartments fairly often). Of course, the demand for a vacant rent stabilized apartment (relative to market demand) somewhat depends on the extent of previous turnover as I believe the allowable vacancy bump is something like 20%.

When rent control opponents can find a better outcome than that for people like her, I'll listen. Do means testing in order to see that the system can't be gamed by people who don't truly need it, but those people are only one part of the story.

No, I really have never been in the Northeast. I have lived in the Southeast, West and Midwest and have traveled many places in the US and world, but I have never been in the Northeast (DC and Baltimore is as close as I have gotten - which is to say not very). Sorry. Learning the details of NYC geography (in what boroughs the slums are, for example) has never been a must do.

I know all about the slums in Chicago and Minneapolis/St. Paul (and to a lesser degree San Francisco) if that makes you feel better. At some point I want to travel there. The ex has plans for a Boston trip (with the boys) and invited me (knowing I want to go there) and I have thoughts of a trip to the big apple inthe next few years.

When rent control opponents can find a better outcome than that for people like her, I'll listen.

Every policy has good and bad outcomes - there is never a pure good (other than indoor plumbing I suppose). Rent Control has very pernicious economic impacts that also hurt people like her. Her story though is one of the reason I said it was so very hard to unwind in a reasonable way. It has been around for decades and much is based on it. A slow and steady unwinding of it is likely the best that can be hoped for.

And hey what about all the nice old ladies who don't live in NYC? We need a policy (safety net if you will) for all of them not just the lucky* few. And I support that net, I just think there are better ways than Rent Control.

* Assuming one thinks living in NYC is in fact lucky (which obviously residents of there do) - I (as discussed) have no idea.

When rent control opponents can find a better outcome than that for people like her, I'll listen.

Every policy has good and bad outcomes - there is never a pure good (other than indoor plumbing I suppose). Rent Control has very pernicious economic impacts that also hurt people like her. Her story though is one of the reason I said it was so very hard to unwind in a reasonable way. It has been around for decades and much is based on it. A slow and steady unwinding of it is likely the best that can be hoped for.

And hey what about all the nice old ladies who don't live in NYC? We need a policy (safety net if you will) for all of them not just the lucky* few. And I support that net, I just think there are better ways than Rent Control.

With rent control opponents like you, I'll listen. The bottom line for me is that older low income people who've been a part of their communities for years don't just get told to pay the higher rent or move out. The anecdotal response to that is the millionaire paying $1200 for a Central Park West four bedroom. As I said, when someone can find a way to keep (the diminishing number of) older residents in their neighborhoods, while at the same time making people who can truly afford it pay the market rate, I wouldn't be opposed to that.

And to the extent that a landlord's taxes aren't modified by the loss of income due to rent control, that's also something that would obviously have to be addressed. But people who buy rent-controlled or rent-stabilized buildings certainly are aware of what they're getting into at the time of purchase, and in response to cases of millionaires keeping rent controlled apartments while they really live elsewhere, there are also cases of speculators who hire goons to evict longstanding tenants in order to vacate their buildings. Anyone who doesn't acknowledge all of these factors isn't being fully descriptive of the overall situation, not that you're not aware of all that.

This is true for rent control apartments (essentially no allowable increases in rent) but not for rent stabilized apartments (limited annual increases + larger vacancy increases + luxury decontrol). The latter comes on the market as existing tenants relocate (which in my building happens in about 1/2 of the apartments fairly often). Of course, the demand for a vacant rent stabilized apartment (relative to market demand) somewhat depends on the extent of previous turnover as I believe the allowable vacancy bump is something like 20%.

Annual stabilization increases are typically 3-5% per year at most, citywide, and usually fat smaller than the rise in free market pricing. In Manhattan the free market rent is far more than the stabilized rent, and in the other boroughs the gap can be much smaller. (RS sometimes shows up in new buildings in exchange for certain tax breaks etc.) Where's your building?

There is no real reason older residents should get to stay in their neighborhood at vastly reduced prices other than nostalgia. If your Aunt couldn't even pay the rent control priced rent should she be allowed to stay in her apartment anyway? The thing is she is a renter not an owner. If you want to be able to stay in your neighborhood well into your old age and when your earnings are reduced then you should buy not rent when you are younger.

I just don't understand why Romney gets a free pass for changing his positions on topics depending on which way the winds blow, yet I remember Kerry getting constantly nailed in the press for the same thing to the effect that Al Michaels mentioned it during a MNF broadcast years ago?

I just don't understand why Romney gets a free pass for changing his positions on topics depending on which way the winds blow

Some of it is the decision by the Obama campaign not to emphasize it. Attacking Romney on flip-flops runs the risk of allowing him to sound more moderate (not really doing all those bad things we keep hearing about - he is just a policy wonk and was trying to placate the GOP base).

There are a bunch of factors, and it sounds like ultimately they (Obama) decided to go after other things, while occasionally mentioning it ("Moderate Mitt, I missed you", Bill Clinton). Not sure it was the right decision, but I tend to trust the Obama campaign, and that is the Blogosphere theory.

EDIT: Many are questioning this tactic, especially in light of the debate. We shall see what the Obama campaign does.

There is no real reason older residents should get to stay in their neighborhood at vastly reduced prices other than nostalgia. If your Aunt couldn't even pay the rent control priced rent should she be allowed to stay in her apartment anyway? The thing is she is a renter not an owner. If you want to be able to stay in your neighborhood well into your old age and when your earnings are reduced then you should buy not rent when you are younger.

That's a well stated summary of the basic anti-rent control position. It's impossible to respond to, however, since it's based on a premise that I don't agree with, which is that the overriding interest that has to be satisfied at all costs is that of the property owner. We could talk past each other for the next ten years and not be able to get past our competing firewalls.

I think the last thing the Democrats want is a moderate looking Republican in this election. If the economy was more robust you can attack Romney for switching positions but you'd rather people in the middle believe that Romney is some rich far right Repbulican whacko than some down the middle politician.